BBC Apologizes to Trump but Refuses to Pay Up Like He Demanded

The British Broadcasting Corporation has apologized to President Donald Trump for editing his speech on an episode of Panorama, but will not fork over the $1 billion he threatened to sue for.

Earlier this week, the president’s legal team sent a letter to the BBC claiming that the British news outlet attempted to “interfere in the presidential election” by editing one of his January 6, 2021, speeches in a broadcast one day before the 2024 vote.

Panorama edited together two sections of Trump’s 2021 speech, including his line calling on supporters to “fight like hell,” while leaving out a section in which he told them to peacefully protest. Controversy ensued, causing Director General Tim Davie and news CEO Deborah Turness both to resign on Sunday, which Trump celebrated on Truth Social.

He also sent a letter to the BBC threatening a $1 billion defamation lawsuit unless the BBC did a “full and fair” retraction of the Panorama episode and “appropriately compensated” him for harm done. The deadline for the BBC to respond was Friday.

“We accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action,” the BBC wrote in its Corrections and Clarifications section on Thursday.

While the BBC “sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited,” it still “strongly disagree[s] there is a basis for a defamation claim,” a spokesperson said. The letter to Trump’s team notes that the news agency did not distribute the Panorama episode in the United States, the clip was only edited for the sake of time, and the episode did not cause Trump any harm given that he won the election.

Trump has already made other large media corporations fold financially, getting a $16 million settlement from CBS News over edits to an interview with Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election, and another $16 million settlement with ABC News after host George Stephanopolous used the phrase “liable for rape” to describe Trump’s E. Jean Carroll case verdict.

Right-wing commentator Megyn Kelly is trying to downplay the latest Jeffrey Epstein emails by questioning if the billionaire child sex offender was really a pedophile. 

On her Sirius XM radio show Wednesday, Kelly highlighted the ages of Epstein’s victims, declaring that there is a “difference between a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old.”

“Yeah, so I don’t know what’s true about him, but we have yet to see anybody come forward and say I was under 10, I was under 14 when I first came within his purview. You can say that’s a distinction without a difference. I think there is a difference,” Kelly said to her guest Batya Ungar-Sargon.  

It’s a roundabout and indirect way of trying to soften the allegations against President Trump by downplaying Epstein’s offenses, and even casting a little doubt. It’s one of many attempts by Trump allies and people on the right to try and protect the president, who has been heavily implicated in this week’s email releases.

Among the many revelations are that Epstein bragged about “giving” his 20-year-old girlfriend to Trump and that he may have spent Thanksgiving with him in 2017, during his first term as president. House Republicans and the White House attempted to claim that one of the victims Epstein said Trump spent a lot of time with, per one email, was Virginia Giuffre, who died earlier this year and claimed she never witnessed Trump commit any wrongdoing. 

In doing so, however, Republicans confirmed that the emails are real, taking away the ability of Trump or any of his allies to deny their substance and forcing them into pathetic defenses like Kelly’s. To her credit, Kelly still expressed contempt for Epstein in the exchange, saying, “Every time we start talking about Epstein, it makes your skin crawl.” Well, so do the many defenses for Trump’s behavior. 

The man President Trump wanted to be attorney general was allegedly paying for sex with a 17-year old girl who was working at a McDonald’s, saving up for braces, and partly living at a homeless shelter.

Last year, a House Ethics Committee report found “substantial evidence” that former representative and former attorney general nominee Matt Gaetz “regularly paid women for engaging in sexual activity with him,” and that he “engaged in sexual activity with a 17-year-old girl” in 2017. The report also mentioned that Gaetz possessed and used cocaine and ecstasy while in office. Last month, newly unsealed court documents further detailed just how dire a situation the girl was living in before she was connected with Gaetz.

As The New York Times reported, the girl was in and out of homeless shelters, where one of her parents lived after a divorce. In an attempt to save up for braces, she joined a sugar dating website, saying she was 18 instead of 17 to join.

The girl met Gaetz’s friend Joel Greenberg through the website in April 2017. He invited her on his boat and paid her $400 without having sex with her. They then had sex seven times for money after that. In July, she went to a party thrown by Republican lobbyist Chris Dorworth and had sex with then-Representative Gaetz twice.

“The vulnerable circumstances most crime victims face are rarely known to the public,” the victim’s lawyer Laura B. Wolf told The New York Times. “Although my client’s circumstances were revealed outside of her control, I hope it helps for the public to see a fuller and more human picture of her than the press has reported on to date.… Power imbalances can be age, but they can also be financial. My client had little economic security, which allowed for financial leverage over her.”

Gaetz has denied everything.

“I never had sex with this person.… This person threatened me with a lawsuit if I didn’t pay her $2.3 million,” he said in a text to the Times. “She never sued me because her story is fiction.”

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain: Donald Trump would rather Americans focus on his glorious new ballroom than ask another question about his connection to child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

Speaking with reporters Thursday on the advent of a House vote to release the Epstein files, Trump took a pause to celebrate his $300 million project, claiming that his pricey renovation had become “very popular.”

“And right behind me by the way, in about two years from now, we’ll use a much bigger room because we had to turn away a lot of people,” Trump said during an executive order–signing ceremony, waving at the wall behind him. “And it’ll be right here. This will be the entrance. That’s a knockout panel. It’s called a knockout.”

“It looks pretty nice right now but it’ll look a lot better in a little while, and we’re going to go from this room into a room that seats a few more people, and it’s going to be beautiful,” Trump continued. “But uh, I just noticed I happened to be standing here and I thought I might as well get your shot right now, a nice beautiful shot, at the future entrance to something that’s really become very popular, the ballroom.

“They’ve wanted it for 150 years, and they’re getting it, and they’re getting the best—it’ll be the best anywhere in the world,” he added.

After promising Americans in July that his ballroom proposal would “be near but not touching” the White House East Wing, Trump completely razed the FDR-era extension, plowing forward without prerequisite approval from the National Capital Planning Commission (which was closed due to the government shutdown) and without the express permission of Congress.

The Trump administration said in July that the forthcoming 90,000-square-foot event space will be capable of hosting 650 people, a 200-person bump from maximum seatage at the White House East Wing. But real estate experts have since pointed out that the possibilities of that square footage should be much broader, considering the event space will be roughly equivalent to two football fields.

The project’s price tag also inexplicably grew by 50 percent after Trump began demolition. What Trump had originally pitched as a $200 million project was instead referred to in late October as a $300 million development plan. The White House suggested that the project would be funded, in part, by some of the country’s wealthiest families and biggest corporations, including the likes of Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta.

Some major players in the defense industry with massive federal contracts have also forked over significant cash to develop the ballroom, including Lockheed Martin and Palantir, though it’s unclear what they might get out of a venue meant for dancing.

The real estate mogul has reportedly become so fixated on his renovation project that he has literally wandered away from his presidential duties in order to admire the progress.

Meanwhile, conservative lawmakers are turning on Trump. Senior Republicans privately expect dozens of their party members—“possibly 100 or more”—to vote in favor of a bill that would make the federal government’s trove of Epstein files publicly available, reported Politico. A handful have already voiced their intention to back the forthcoming bill, including Representatives Eli Crane, Don Bacon, and Warren Davidson.

It seems that Attorney General Pam Bondi’s kind offer to personally “ratify” interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s actions did not impress the federal judge charged with determining whether her appointment was lawful in the first place.

During a hearing Thursday, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie, who is based in South Carolina, pushed back on the government’s claim that after reviewing the grand jury materials in the case against former FBI Director James Comey, Bondi had agreed to retroactively “ratify” Halligan’s actions, even if Halligan’s initial appointment was deemed invalid.

Currie greeted Bondi’s offer with some skepticism, according to Lawfare’s Roger Parloff. “The implication was: Why do you need that if the original appointment was proper,” Parloff wrote on X.

Currie also pointed out that there was still a missing component of the grand jury transcript, Politico reported. Halligan had previously failed to turn over documents that recorded her own remarks before and after the sole witness’s testimony. Halligan had not provided records of her presentation of the three-count indictment, either.

“It became obvious to me that the attorney general could not have reviewed those portions of the transcript presented by Ms. Halligan,” Currie said, adding that they “did not exist.”

Justice Department attorney Henry Whitaker claimed that Bondi had reviewed the “material facts” of Halligan’s jury presentation, which showed “the grand jury made a decision based on the facts and the law.”

These missing documents could include jury instructions that are crucial to the Comey case. In order to secure the indictment against the ex-FBI director, Halligan needed to clearly explain the criteria for finding a defendant guilty of making a false statement. But there appears to be no record of Halligan, a first-time prosecutor who acted alone in making a presentation to the grand jury, giving these instructions. Should there be an issue with Halligan’s jury instructions, the entire case could be dismissed.